The Helvidius Group – Journal of Politics & Society

By Sarah Tucker

Photo Credit: Flickr user Gin Fizz

The process of Bakola-Bagyeli integration into the public school system of Kribi, Cameroon entails a delicate balance between modernization, preserving tradition, and protecting human rights. In the case of the Bakola-Bagyeli, education has the potential to foster empowerment, but also to erode culture. Increased integration into the education system decreases time spent learning traditional knowledge and skills, increases sedentarization, and creates a need for money to buy necessities such as books and school uniforms. Seeking money obliges Bakola-Bagyeli families to join the market economy through working and shopping, further detracting from their culture of self-sufficiency. The alternative to education is a continuing rural subsistence of their life in the forest, isolated from—and thus left vulnerable to—the processes that impact the forest and their way of life. The lack of Bakola-Bagyeli presence in the broader community in and around Kribi has meant that their voice has been largely missing from decision-making processes, despite the efforts of organizations and individuals to speak on their behalf. I focused my research on the challenges faced by the Bakola-Bagyeli, the potential of education as a tool to address these challenges, and the utility of education as perceived by the Bakola-Bagyeli themselves, school officials, and members of Kribi civil society.

Read the rest of the essay here.

By Anna Mysliwiec

The international Muslim Brotherhood is occasionally characterized by American commentators, especially those with right-wing leanings, as a radical Islamist movement on par with al-Qaeda: transnational, ambitious, and therefore inherently threatening to U.S. interests. Following the Gaza flotilla crisis in June 2010, Thomas Joscelyn commented in the Weekly Standard: "The more one looks into the details of the flotilla the more it becomes clear that the Brotherhood used the humanitarian mission for its own purpose, namely, to assist its Palestinian branch—Hamas."1 Joscelyn paints a picture of a tight-knit, well-organized movement, a many-headed hydra that could pop up anywhere to accomplish its own nefarious ends.

Read the rest of the essay here.

By Leslie H. Gelb

Most nations today beat their foreign policy drums largely to economic rhythms, but less so the United States. Most nations define their interests largely in economic terms and deal mostly in economic power, but less so the United States. Washington still thinks of its security mainly in traditional military terms and responds to threats mainly with force. The principal challenge for Washington, then, is to recompose its foreign policy with an economic theme, while countering threats in new and creative ways. The goal is to redefine "security" to harmonize with twenty-first-century realities.

Economics is now the principal coin of the international realm, and gross domestic product now matters more than military might. Any doubts about that should be erased by one simple and overwhelming fact: China is the first global power in world history that is not a global military power. China’s military punch will be restricted to its border areas for years. Most nations worry not about Chinese arms, but about its trade and investment decisions. And though China’s GDP is just a little more than half of America’s, Beijing’s power rivals Washington’s. World leaders see China’s economy going up and America’s going down, largely because of Washington’s political incapacity to make hard decisions about its domestic economy.

Read the rest of the essay here.

By Philip J. Zakahi

In an October 1, 2008, Washington Post piece titled, "Nov. 4 Isn’t the Only Election Day; Campaigns Adjust as Early Voting Rises," Mary Pat Flaherty outlines the tactics major party presidential campaigns use to win over "electoral gold"—the "early voters" who take advantage of laws in thirty-six states allowing them to vote before Election Day. In some states, a majority of voters now cast their ballots before Election Day, and media reports like Flaherty’s suggest campaigns have adjusted to the increasingly large number of early voters. They use specially targeted ads and get-out-the-vote operations to reach voters who might vote early. Scholars, however, have yet to adjust their work to incorporate these changes in campaign practices. While there is a large body of literature exploring the changes in turnout and electoral demographics due to early voting, there is almost no research examining the role of early voting in campaign behavior. This appears particularly important for scholars examining the role of campaign expenditures on electoral outcomes. Existing work simply does not account for a world in which a large number of voters have cast their ballots before campaigns have spent 100 percent of their funds. This study begins to fill that gap by demonstrating that candidates do spend money earlier in states with early voting and offering evidence to suggest this early spending may not necessarily give candidates an electoral advantage. The first finding helps to validate the claims made by campaign experts and news media about the impact of early voting on campaigns. The second finding can guide the spending of campaigns in states where there is early voting and candidates may be tempted to spend their funds early. Together, they challenge the academic literature to account for the growing role of early voters.

Read the rest of the essay here.

By Derek Pham

Despite China’s efforts in the past decade to implement a “good neighbor” policy with surrounding states, in the past two years this foreign policy has been seemingly compromised by China’s aggressive tactics in the contested South China Sea (SCS), including its imposition of unilateral fishing bans, arrests of foreign fishermen, and increased coastal patrols. China’s supposed private declaration this past March to American officials that the South China Sea constituted a “core interest” appeared to affirm a newfound and unconventionally aggressive commitment to the question of sovereignty in the SCS. This pattern of assertiveness was further apparent in China’s vehement response to U.S. intervention in the dispute. Media reports attempting to interpret the change in posture concluded that there was still much uncertainty associated with China’s ascendancy in the international system.

Read the rest of the essay here.

By Daniel E. Rauch

We must never forget that it is a Constitution for the United States of America that we are expounding.”1 With these words, Justice Antonin Scalia registered his disapproval for an increasingly prominent practice: the Supreme Court’s citation of non-American law. He is not alone; over the past decade, the Court’s use of foreign and international materials has proven deeply controversial,2 attracting both ardent support and scathing criticism. Yet, although the Court’s glimpses abroad have proven polarizing, America has seen a similar practice flourish without controversy for centuries. Since the Founding, America’s state court systems—each with its own judicial system and constitutional law—have cited each other when interpreting their state constitutions.3 That two seemingly comparable techniques have drawn such dramatically different reactions logically suggests the question: if one practice is so widely accepted, what justifies rejecting the other? Addressing this question, in this analysis I argue that there is, in fact, justification for treating these practices differently, but that such justification is limited to concerns drawn from the practical difficulties each method presents.

Read the rest of the essay here.